Patterns of Conflict Escalation: II

In Part I of this exploration, we examined some behavioral patterns that escalate conflicts, including accusations and apologies. In this Part II, we turn our attention to patterns of thinking that lead us to make damaging errors when managing disagreements.

Sunk cost effect and sunk time effect

These two cognitive biases, and the "sacrifice trap," lead us to believe that rigidly adhering to our own positions in an ongoing disagreement is sensible. [Boulding 1990] The reasoning goes like this: "If I yield on this point, all my past work and sacrifices will be for naught." People who hold this belief feel that only total victory can justify the resources or time expended so far in establishing or defending their current positions. When this leads to increasing investment in the current position, this pattern is called escalation of commitment.

Resolving sincere disagreements usually requires all parties to take into account at least some of the interests of the others. That often entails letting go of some of our own past commitments. People ensnared in the sunk cost effect, the sunk time effect, or the sacrifice trap have great difficulty letting go. Moreover, these lines of thinking can lead their adherents along a path of indefinite escalation.

Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias (see "Confirmation Bias: Workplace Consequences Part I," Point Lookout for November 23, 2011) is a cognitive bias that causes us to seek information confirming our preconceptions, while we avoid information that might contradict them. It can also cause us to overvalue information supporting our preconceptions, and undervalue information that conflicts with them.

This bias can obviously lead to conflict escalation when a party to the conflict interprets the statements or acts of other parties in ways that raise questions about their integrity. But more important, when confirmation bias becomes an ingredient of conspiracy theories, the conflict can widen to include other people not involved in the immediate conflict. Confirmation bias thus provides a means for toxic conflict to spread through the organization, contributing to factionalism and feuds.

Attribution bias

Attribution bias Resolving sincere disagreements
usually requires all parties to
take into account at least some
of the interests of the othersis a cognitive bias that affects the way we attribute causes for someone's behavior. In conflict, it can lead us to ascribe nefarious motives to people we dislike or distrust, while ascribing only the highest motives to ourselves or to people we like or trust. Even when the disfavored person behaves admirably or fairly, attribution bias can lead us to attribute that behavior to strategic deception, which justifies rejecting any constructive overtures by other parties to the conflict, rendering toxicity of the conflict inevitable, and making the toxicity more durable and intense.

Once one of the parties to a conflict begins ascribing negative motives to other parties to the conflict, conflict escalation is likely well underway. Delaying intervention until one is certain that things have turned sour is extremely risky.

These patterns are merely representative. There are more. I hope you're curious enough to explore further. First in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Conflict Management:

Nasty Questions: I

Some of the questions we ask each other aren't intended to elicit information from the respondent. Rather, they're poorly disguised attacks intended to harm the respondent politically, and advance the questioner's political agenda. Here's part one a catalog of some favorite tactics.

Logically Illogical

Discussions in meetings and in written media can get long and complex. When a chain of reasoning gets long enough, we sometimes make fundamental errors of logic, especially when we're under time pressure. Here are just a few.

Handling Heat: II

Heated exchanges in meetings can compromise both the organizational mission and the careers of the meeting's participants. Here are some tactics for people who aren't chairing the meeting.

See No Bully, Hear No Bully

Supervisors of bullies sometimes are unaware of bullying activity in their organizations. Here's a collection of indicators for supervisors who suspect bullying but who haven't witnessed it directly.

Why Others Do What They Do

If you're human, you make mistakes. A particularly expensive kind of mistake is guessing incorrectly why others do what they do. Here are some of the ways we get this wrong.

See also Conflict Management and Critical Thinking at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 12: Pre-Decision Discussions: Emotions

Some meeting agendas include exploring issues related to upcoming decisions. Although we believe that these discussions are purely rational and lead to rational decisions, some contributions evoke emotional responses. Here are five examples. Available here and by RSS on May 12.

And on May 19: Pre-Decision Discussions: Reasoning

When we meet to resolve issues related to upcoming decisions, we sometimes rely on reasoning to help find solutions. Contributions to these discussions generally use mixtures of deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. How do they differ, and what are their strengths and risks? Available here and by RSS on May 19.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenKyrpMiqBnnUUPnWHner@ChacgEbnSaDGlMyKFJgtoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   
• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   

Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?

Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 24, 2020, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   
• A recording of a program presented June 24, 2020, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.